IF your religion was proved to be incorrect, how would you change.

[Demagog]

I would believe in anything as long as I can logically justify it. To me, logic, reason, causality, and determinism are absolute; I currently refuse to believe in any religion whatsoever because I cannot logically justify the existence of a God. I would believe in God if his existence is logically and scientifically proven.

By this definition, you shouldn't believe in the existence of anything outside yourself.

Anyway, outside of some supernatural event, there's no way to disprove a religion. So a supernatural event would have to occur, which would most likely point to the "correct" religion, and then everyone would go to that one.

[Daytripper]

By this definition, you shouldn't believe in the existence of anything outside yourself.

Anyway, outside of some supernatural event, there's no way to disprove a religion. So a supernatural event would have to occur, which would most likely point to the "correct" religion, and then everyone would go to that one.

That is a puzzling attitude. Mozes and Aaron were speaking to God, like, on a daily basis. Still people were whining all the time and defying God, even if God then proceeded to kill or threaten a couple of them. This did not happen just once, it keeps happening over and over.

What is the problem now? Why can't God cast a rain of fire and kill a couple of infidels, and be all like: ''I am still here, now remember to go to church and do not eat any lobster. Thank you. Oh, what I said about slavery is now outdated.''

[Belthus]

What is the problem now? Why can't God cast a rain of fire and kill a couple of infidels, and be all like: ''I am still here, now remember to go to church and do not eat any lobster. Thank you. Oh, what I said about slavery is now outdated.''

That reminds me of a great interview with Robert G. Ingersoll:

When I say I want a miracle, I mean by that, I want a good one. All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated. A fellow could have pretended to be dead or blind, or dumb, or deaf. I want to see a good miracle: I want to see a man with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out.

I would like to see a miracle like that performed in North Carolina. Two men were disputing about the relative merits of the salve they had for sale. One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tail and applied a little of the salve to the stump and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out. But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarrelling as to who owned the second dog. Something like that is what I call a miracle.

And another classic:

If you should tell a man that the dead were raised two thousand years ago, he would probably say: "Yes, I know that." If you should say that a hundred thousand years from now all the dead will be raised, he might say: "Probably they will." But if you should tell him that you saw a dead man raised and given life that day, he would likely ask the name of the insane asylum from which you had escaped.

[Scaredgirl]

If God was proven not to exist at all . . . I think I'd honestly have to check myself into a mental hospital. I've just seen/experienced to many things that can only be explained by either a) God exists or b) I've gone crazy.

Weird things happen all the time. Even if we cannot explain it, it doesn't automatically mean that "God did it". That's the anti-science, stone age thinking we used when we lived on trees and threw feces at each other.

Do you have any specific examples of this "proof" that God exists?

[ratcharmer]

Weird things happen all the time. Even if we cannot explain it, it doesn't automatically mean that "God did it". That's the anti-science, stone age thinking we used when we lived on trees and threw feces at each other.

Do you have any specific examples of this "proof" that God exists?

First off, really, there's no need for random name calling. You're demanding that someone share deeply personal experiences and belittling that same person in the same breath.

That isn't exactly conducive to a rational, open and honest discussion of something.

As to the things that I've seen/experienced that I can't explain without invoking either God or schizophrenia on my part, I can list a couple if it satisfies your curiosity:

-My grandmother has come back to visit us several times after she died. These events were witnessed by multiple people, myself included.

-I have witnessed several incidents of poltergeist activity. Again, there were other witnesses to at least some of these, and others left behind physical traces (object imbedded in walls etc.). In one case I was even thrown bodily.

-I have prayers answered on a regular basis and I interact with God in a great deal of other ways. So do many of my friends/family. Some of them are rather subtle, such as merely "feeling better" etc, but others are rather hard to ignore-i.e. I'll be praying about a problem and the instant I finish someone will walk in and hand me the solution. Once could be a coincidence, but a dozen times over a couple months? Occam's razor is getting pretty sharp.

I have more, but as I said many of them are deeply personal, and to be a bit blunt I'm not comfortable sharing them with someone as hostile as you are right now, Scaredgirl.

I know that reading me saying that this is what I've experienced isn't as convincing, but having lived through those? I either need to get to a church or a loony bin.

@Drunkdestroyer: It isn't so much that I "feel the need to believe in something" as it is what I've experienced gives me a very limited range of belief systems I can rationally accept. If all of those options were proven false, I would be forced to conclude that I was not properly perceiving reality, and was therefore crazy.

If anyone is curious, yes I actually did have myself tested for schizophrenia after some of these incidents. The tests came back saying I'm fine. But then again why take a crazy person's word for it?

[Bloodshadow]

By this definition, you shouldn't believe in the existence of anything outside yourself.

When I see an object, for example a tree, here's what I automatically think:

1. The tree is composed of molecules of organic compounds, thus it exists.

2. The tree is grown from a seed by absorbing light and nutrients, thus it exists.

3. The tree is evolved from microorganisms that existed eons ago, thus it exists.

Based on my knowledge, I can logically justify that the tree exists.

If I cannot justify the existence of something I observed, I will seek new knowledge in order to justify it. I will believe in God if both of the following happens:

- I confirm the existence of God by interacting with him in some way.

- I acquire new knowledge to justify the existence of God.

[Demagog]

I would believe in anything as long as I can logically justify it.

By this definition, you shouldn't believe in the existence of anything outside yourself.

When I see an object, for example a tree, here's what I automatically think:

1. The tree is composed of molecules of organic compounds, thus it exists.

2. The tree is grown from a seed by absorbing light and nutrients, thus it exists.

3. The tree is evolved from microorganisms that existed eons ago, thus it exists.

Based on my knowledge, I can logically justify that the tree exists.

If I cannot justify the existence of something I observed, I will seek new knowledge in order to justify it. I will believe in God if both of the following happens:

- I confirm the existence of God by interacting with him in some way.

- I acquire new knowledge to justify the existence of God.

How do you know that microorganisms exist? How do you know seeds exist? How do you know light exists? How do you know molecules exist?

I'll answer it for you: you don't. You believe these things exist based off your senses and what others have told you (and you don't know these people exist). Your senses have been wrong before, right? It is therefore logical to conclude that it is possible that they are wrong all the time, causing you to experience things that don't exist.

My point is, you can not logically justify the existence of anything outside yourself without first assuming that things exist outside yourself. That's just as big a leap as it is to assume a god exists.

Let's define the natural and supernatural worlds. The natural world is all that you can become aware of through your senses. The supernatural world is entities (thinking beings) and perhaps places/objects outside yourself that may or may not be tied to the natural world (meaning other people might exist, but we are all supernatural beings experiencing illusions). In order to believe something of the natural world exists, you must first assume things in the natural world exist. In order to believe something of the supernatural world exists, you must first assume things in the supernatural world exists. So, you're doing the same thing as those that believe in the supernatural.

[Bloodshadow]

You don't need to explain those things to me, Demagog. I'm already more than aware of them. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I tried to tell a guy on Kongregate that clouds don't exist if you've never seen or heard of them. The basic idea of quantum mechanics is that nothing is real until observed, and I'm perfectly aware of that.

How do you know that microorganisms exist? How do you know seeds exist? How do you know light exists? How do you know molecules exist?

I've learned them from books and various other sources. It's entirely possible that all of those sources are wrong, but it's also entirely possible that all of those sources are right. I chose to believe the sources because I have no other, better options. Instead of doubting whether they're true, I'd rather assume that they're true and build upon them. I struggle to make sense of everything I experience, and I have to make some assumptions because else I'd have nowhere to start. Ultimately, I do not believe in God at the moment because I cannot justify his existence from the assumptions I have made. I know my assumptions could be wrong, but they could also be right, so I'd rather be optimistic and assume they're right instead of doubting if they're wrong.

My ultimate goal in life is to find the Theory of Everything, because such a theory will literally justify everything in existence.

[DrunkDestroyer]

@Drunkdestroyer: It isn't so much that I "feel the need to believe in something" as it is what I've experienced gives me a very limited range of belief systems I can rationally accept. If all of those options were proven false, I would be forced to conclude that I was not properly perceiving reality, and was therefore crazy.

So if none of the experiences you listed above had happened, or the ones you did not share, you would be happy to be aethiest? Or if there were only enough to call coincidence, would you still want to beleive, and beleive in God?

Weird things happen all the time. Even if we cannot explain it, it doesn't automatically mean that "God did it". That's the anti-science, stone age thinking we used when we lived on trees and threw feces at each other.

Do you have any specific examples of this "proof" that God exists?

And SG honestly, I think you are being deliberately negative with this thread. The purose of this is to find out how the different strong willed (as we can see on other parts of this forum) would react, if everything they had known for fact changed. Would the aethiests repent, or be critical? Would the religious disband, or continue in denial?

I don't think you are being fair with your post really. Miracles can happen, and it's not anti-science really.
How did humans get here? I don't mean evolution, I mean life at all. How is it even on a planet, or this planet? Why does this planet even exist? And why are we, and all other life forms, only on earth (and partially Mars, if you count the very tiny organism).
Isn't it a slight coincidence, that the only known life, just happened to live on the only habilable planet in our, and most nearby solar systems? How is our planet so perfect for us?

Maybe this isn't your definition of miracle, and maybe ratchamer's arent either, but please don't call it stone age thinking.

[SnoWeb]

I would believe in anything as long as I can logically justify it. To me, logic, reason, causality, and determinism are absolute; I currently refuse to believe in any religion whatsoever because I cannot logically justify the existence of a God. I would believe in God if his existence is logically and scientifically proven.

I basically agree. I'm a pure scientist and for me, religion is about blindly following a theory without any hints/proof of its reality. If there is a proof (a real one: unambiguously, clearly and scientifically demonstrated) of the existence of a God it is not a matter of religion any more it is a matter of fact! In this case I would take this fact into account to orient my acts.
However, the fact that god exists doesn't mean that the churches are right .... A proof that a god really exist (and only of this) would probably modify very few of my behaviours.

[BluePriest]

I think atheistic perspective in this matter is quite entertaining. You dont want God telling you what to do, you dont want to be controlled, and yet, you are angry because if he does exist, whoever he is doesnt intervene enough because of all the crap that happens, which if he intervened every time something was going to go wrong, there would essentially be no free will.

I like comparing God to our parents. Are you mad at them when you make mistakes, and they let you do it, even though they warned you beforehand? What about if they told you not to, and yet you did anyways? Are you mad at them when it ends up they were right and you shouldnt have done that? Are you mad at your parents because they didnt stop a bully from picking on you? We want free will from our parents, we want to make our own mistakes, yet we are angered at the possibility of a supreme being that doesnt intervene whenever bad things are going to happen.

I basically agree. I'm a pure scientist and for me, religion is about blindly following a theory without any hints/proof of its reality.

And what about what ratcharmer mentioned?

I think its interesting that lack of proof seems more of an excuse than anything to me. No amount of proof will be enough because if there is something that cant be explained, it is not considered proof, it is just that we cant explain it yet. So when does something leave scientific probability? If you saw a dog grow its head back, I almost guarantee that there would be studies into that dog, and it wouldnt be considered proof, even if no logical explanation was found outside of God.

[miniwally]

I'd probably just do the same, I'm happy with what I do so why should I change just because there is a god.